Writing for broadcast requires remarkable discipline. No matter how many fancy words you know, you need to boil the sentences and phrases down to simple concepts, communicated simply.
But simplicity isn’t good enough. You also have to be clear.
A news item on the radio today was about a adult video store robbery, in which the thieves "took a small amount of money, some videos, magazines and two wallets."
The newsreader ended with this sentence:
"They ran away, but police said they were not able to find them."
Top points for simplicity, but there’s no clarity in the language. Were the police looking for the thieves, or the porn magazines? Were the thieves looking for something?
I know how hard it can be to avoid ambiguities, so I’m not calling anyone out on this. It just struck me as a good example of simple language that tells the story, but leaves unanswered questions.
In this case, listeners are able to connect the dots and infer that the thieves ran away, the police were looking for the thieves, and the police were unable to find the thieves.
But in a story that quotes a public figure commenting on sexual abuse or fraud, it’s important to be very clear who "they" is in your reporting. The last thing you want is for inexact wording to leave listeners wondering whether the mayor is guilty of a crime, when the mayor was describing his or her anti-crime stance,